747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6819 times:
Why it took the US Navy 40's years to build a new class of carrier. In 2015 when CVN-21/CVN-78 is commissioned the USS Nimitz will be 40 years old. Why have the US Navy been building the same design for so long. I know there are many that would say each one has some up dates to there design, but being station on board one of the newer Nimitz class I do not see that many up dates.
Greaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1081 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6802 times:
Despite the fact that is cost many billions to design and build an aircraft carrier, the basic look of the carrier is plenty efficient and good for the Navy's use, except for the island which newer carriers will supposedly have downsized. Considering that the KC-135s are still flying, along with the b-52s, im not surprised that we dont replace entire designs every 40 years. Keep in mind that the navy frequently updates its carriers, though most of the time they're small, they work and are good alternatives to build a new carrier class every 10 years or so.
Daveflys0509 From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 87 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6673 times:
I think the fact that the Nimitz design served the Navy so well was the reason why it wasn't updated, you always know the saying "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" But the biggest changes with the CVN-21 class is the electromagnetic cat shots and arrested landings, these will replace the steam catapults and pistons used on the a-gear. This should be an interesting change as both systems seem pretty reliable and have worked so well for us for so many years. The other change is a reduced island, and streamlining the antennas into arrays.
N328KF From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6657 times:
Quoting Daveflys0509 (Reply 3): I think the fact that the Nimitz design served the Navy so well was the reason why it wasn't updated, you always know the saying "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" But the biggest changes with the CVN-21 class is the electromagnetic cat shots and arrested landings, these will replace the steam catapults and pistons used on the a-gear. This should be an interesting change as both systems seem pretty reliable and have worked so well for us for so many years. The other change is a reduced island, and streamlining the antennas into arrays.
Those are minor, superficial changes. The big change is automation.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
JakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6563 times:
The USS Nimtiz will be 40 years old, but many of her sister ships are young, the lastest in the fleet USS Ronald Reagan (2003) and the newest being built is USS George Bush (Sr.) which should be commissioned around 2009.
Why replace a sound and strong design, that is continues to prove its worth? Even the next generation super-carrier will be somewhat based on the Nimtiz design.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6555 times:
The Nimitz class is exactly what we've needed for the mission for the past quarter century+. The Forrestal/Kitty Hawk/Enterprise class carriers are all semi-comparable in size to the Nimitz boats, it's just a matter of propulsion/systems/etc etc...the basic size of the boats haven't changed, just the quality has gotten alot better versus older 'small deck' boats such as the Essex, Midway, etc.
I guess the politicians don't want the boats getting any better than this
Interesting to note, from those artist renderings, looks like the new CVN will have 3 elevators? Odd.
Sinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1532 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6472 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 4): Those are minor, superficial changes. The big change is automation.
Thats a bit of an understatement, The steam plumbing and systems for air operations 17% of The Big E's internal space, it's near the same amount fot the Nimitz class. If only half of that space is recovered with the Mag system thats a lot of room that can now be used for systems, storage, or larger berthing.
Sidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 6224 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): know there are many that would say each one has some up dates to there design, but being station on board one of the newer Nimitz class I do not see that many up dates.
When the Nimitz was bought for the OUTRAGEOUS sum of 1 Billion (gasp!) dollars, human capital was cheap. Now it is the single most expensive part of a ship's life cycle cost.
The biggest difference between the CVN-78 and earlier carriers will be the cost of people over the life of the ship.
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5313 times:
The Ford also has a new propulsion plant. I think it may make over 300000 SHP I not sure.
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3249 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5307 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13): The Ford also has a new propulsion plant. I think it may make over 300000 SHP I not sure.
Not paying as much attention to the thread as I should - for a moment there I had a mental picture of a really, really, fast Crown Vic Police Interceptor... :-0
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5271 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): Why it took the US Navy 40's years to build a new class of carrier. In 2015 when CVN-21/CVN-78 is commissioned the USS Nimitz will be 40 years old. Why have the US Navy been building the same design for so long.
Because it's a proven design that has accommodated technological updates throughout its 40 year life span. Given the cost associated with clean sheet design. I'd say the Navy has been pretty good at getting the most it could with the taxpayers money.
Ba97 From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 377 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5222 times:
I am trying to figure out what "big" change could occur to a rather simple concept. Aircraft carrier needs: Largest flat deck possible, able to launch and land at the same time, fast, carry lots of planes. Not sure what massive improvements are possible. Adding reactors just extended sailing times. Moving the elevators from the Forrestal configuration opened up more efficient ops but was not a big change.
there is economy class, business class, first class...then Concorde..pure class
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, RR: 80 Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5021 times:
That interesting pic shows phased array radars, and what looks like a small VLS cluster forward, near one of the forward catapults, (ESSM?)
But, as stated, automation to reduce manpower, a huge cost, seems to be the driver, along with EMALs.
DEVILFISH, I cannot remember VT doing any Tri hulled carrier concepts, though they did build a small demonstrator ship.
But a few years ago, a firm called AVPRO did all manner of military concepts, just basic design/drawings, aside from a pod to carry SF troops on a helicopter or even Harrier, which was prototyped.
Concept drawings did include a tri hull for CVF, but as of the past couple of years, their site has disappeared.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4898 times:
Quoting Ba97 (Reply 16): I am trying to figure out what "big" change could occur to a rather simple concept. Aircraft carrier needs: Largest flat deck possible, able to launch and land at the same time, fast, carry lots of planes. Not sure what massive improvements are possible. Adding reactors just extended sailing times. Moving the elevators from the Forrestal configuration opened up more efficient ops but was not a big change.
Quality of life for the crew for one! A new design could give crews, a larger Laundromat so more more of the the crew can do there wash at the same time. They could build news racks with TV's and a larger land for faster computers access, and bring back so of the luxuries that was put in the Kitty Hawk class that they did not put in the Nimitz class, like elevator and escalators.
Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 55 Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4893 times:
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4429 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4868 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 17): DEVILFISH, I cannot remember VT doing any Tri hulled carrier concepts, though they did build a small demonstrator ship.....Concept drawings did include a tri hull for CVF, but as of the past couple of years, their site has disappeared.
IIRC, I saw the conceptual drawings in Jane's Defence Weekly sometime in '99 or early 2000s. I'm not sure if the Cougar is tri or V-hulled.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7695 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4864 times:
I think the USS Gerald R. Ford will replace the USS Enterprise, a ship that is really getting up there in years and because of its unique design will get increasingly expensive to maintain and overhaul. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that the Nimitz and Eisenhower will be replaced by this new class of aircraft carrier over the next 15 years.
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 15 Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4847 times:
Slightly off topic here, but when will the Kitty Hawk be retired? When the GHW Bush comes online? The Hawk is the last oil burner carrier the USN has. The JFK was just recently retired, and the Connie before Big John. The Enterprise will keeping sailing until 2012, and if she's retires then, she'll be 51 years old. A personal note here...the Kitty Hawk, the Constellation & the Enterprise were all commissioned in 1961, the very year I was born. Seems as if when the last one goes to the boneyard, I'll feel old & worn out too.
Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4750 times:
Perhaps one reason we havn't built a new carrier class is that many in government think that the aircraft carrier is obsolete....or at least will be obsolete by the time such a carrier actually makes it to the fleet. At least, I hope that is one of the reasons. People are sometimes more rational than they look in politics. In the Pentagon, that might be a politically suicidal thought to say openly - just like it was once heresy to question the usefulness of battleships. But I don't doubt many are thinking along those lines and are quietly perparing for the future - just like the carrier people were ready when the battleships at Pearl Harbor sank.
There are many more options for power projection and sea control now then there used to be. We now have strategic bombers with accurate stand off weapons, MOBs(Mobile Ofshore Base), arsenal ships, arsenal subs(the converted Ohio's etc.) ,etc. To survive against a well funded foe like Russia or China a decade or two in the future(or perhaps even NOW) a carrier would have to hide itself - a huge chunk of un-stealthy steal plus a half dozen escorts. If detected, it would have to defeat EVERY ONE of the hundreds of stealthy cruise missiles aimed at it - even a single hit would probably stop flight operations. There is no such thing as a defense that leak proof.
Carriers are good against Saddam like opponents. If you are willing to take risks, they may even be good against Russia and China today. But I wouldn't bet on them for the rest of the 21st century. To survive, tomorrow's carriers will have to be stealthy and semisubmersible. Ot they will have to be able to take a few hits and still launch strikes. Either capability would be phenomenally expensive, and difficult to justify when there are alternatives. Historically, it takes actual defeat on the battlefield for entrenched interests to admit that a weapon system is obsolete. I hope that won't be the case with the US and its carriers.
N328KF From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4731 times:
Quoting Cloudy (Reply 23): Carriers are good against Saddam like opponents. If you are willing to take risks, they may even be good against Russia and China today. But I wouldn't bet on them for the rest of the 21st century. To survive, tomorrow's carriers will have to be stealthy and semisubmersible. Ot they will have to be able to take a few hits and still launch strikes. Either capability would be phenomenally expensive, and difficult to justify when there are alternatives. Historically, it takes actual defeat on the battlefield for entrenched interests to admit that a weapon system is obsolete. I hope that won't be the case with the US and its carriers.
You're thinking of aircraft carriers in an exclusively tactical sense. Think of them in the geopolitical sense -- "power projection."
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
25 Usnseallt82: Christ dude....you gotta stop this crap. Unless you can put some proof out under 2 seperate threads now, you need to quit with this obsolete mess.
26 BigJKU: You were challenged on this in another thread and provide no response. Again, it is not terribly hard to hide a carrier group from the opposition. If
27 Cloudy: First, I NEVER CLAIMED THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER IS OBSOLETE. I claimed that if it is not obsolete now, there is a good chance it would be by the time any
28 BigJKU: Happening once in a non-wartime situation is a bit different from happening under full wartime conditons. The combat radius of an F-18E without tanke
29 747400sp: Just the ideal of a 100,000 ton warship being in there water should sacer the mess out of the our foe. If contry stop us from useing there air base,
30 RedFlyer: Because no other country in the world has carriers like the U.S. does so there is no urgency to counteract something a potential foe may field, and n
31 Wvsuperhornet: Why replace something that isnt matched. No other country can match the US Navy in open waters so why would they need a new design right away.
32 JGPH1A: Two questions: 1. Why are all these new ships named after Republican presidents ? Why no USS William J. Clinton ? 2. I don't see any double-decker A38
33 ZANL188: Truman a republican? I don't think so....... http://www.truman.navy.mil/ The Clintons despised the military when they first occupied the White House
34 JGPH1A: I thought being President was all about "respect for the Office" - I would have thought that the Navy, being non-partisan, should be strictly politic
35 ZANL188: Respect is mutual, and Clinton had none for the military. Somebody explained the whole commander in chief thing to him and he eventually got wise but
36 JGPH1A: I cherish no such illusions. But the Navy, like the other branches of the military meant to serve the interests of the United States, and not just th
37 ZANL188: Disturbing? No. Reality? Yes. This "politicization" (and you say that as if it is a process with a beginning and an end) you speak of has been going
38 TexL1649: Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 32): 1. Why are all these new ships named after Republican presidents ? FYI, there's even this joke-of-a-name on a nuclear attac
39 FlagshipAZ: It could be worse. Imagine the USS Richard M. Nixon. Now that's really a scary thought. Who would crew it? Regards.
40 JGPH1A: It's a finer line than you might imagine, and one that appears to have been crossed (at least from where I'm sitting) How is that any sillier that US
41 Halls120: Hogwash. Your comment illustrates your lack of real knowledge of the US armed forces.
42 BigJKU: You might do a little bit of research on those subjects before you pop off with uneducated comments about if they deserve to have a ship named after
43 LMP737: As someone has already pointed out Truman was not a Republican. John Stennis was a senator from Mississippi and a Democrat. Of the past three carrier
44 JGPH1A: Step outside for a fresh perspective. It's amazing how different it looks from over here. The US military does appear (and I use the word advisedly),
45 ZANL188: If that were true we would never have gone into Iraq..... Good for a laugh though.... Never heard of don't ask, don't tell? Then there's Hillaries da
46 BigJKU: Don't backpedal. You first suggested naming a ship after Clinton then suggested that naming a ship after George HW Bush was equally as silly. When ca
47 JGPH1A: Yes I have - I would hardly call that social engineering, I'd call that an anachronistic band-aid over a reality every other western democracy dealt
48 JGPH1A: I didn't suggest it, I asked "Why not ?" - semantic difference. They aren't ALL named for Republicans, but the majority of carriers named for Preside
49 Usnseallt82: You should see how your current country looks from here. You know what....I thought about engaging you in all of this, but then it hit me....you prob
50 RedFlyer: Your argument makes little sense (I don't mean that disrespectfully, by the way) because what you are implying is that by virtue of the Office of the
51 ZANL188: In other words, after removing the commentary, you agree that its social engineering - which was the point wasn't it... Oh but you did!! You said "by
52 BigJKU: Again, you should try educating yourself rather than being flat out ignorant. The military was early to allow African Americans into the ranks and in
53 Halls120: Examples, please. The US has always had a tradition of naming ships after people, and yes, sometimes that includes political leaders. It also include
54 JGPH1A: Actually I have, not that it's relevant here. I served 2 years in the South African Air Force, it was when military service was mandatory. I didn't e
55 Halls120: Well, maybe the reason the Navy named a nuclear submarine after President Carter is because prior to leaving the Navy because of his father's death,
56 LMP737: I'll second that motion. However DDG-80, the USS Roosevelt, was named for FDR and his wife. IMHO FDR deserves a carrier named after him. < http://www
57 JGPH1A: You seem to imply that I am aggrieved by this. I'm not, I used it as an example of how misinterpretations might arise, because others (who don't have
58 RedFlyer: "Subjective" means personal. I can assure you that the military's impressions of certain Commanders-in-Chief are hardly subjective. William Clinton h
59 JGPH1A: I see from the linked page that the ship type, DDG-51 "Arleigh Burke class" has several "flight" types. What exactly is a "flight" in this context ?
60 Halls120: Not implying that in the least bit. What I am stating is that there was a very specific reason the Navy named a submarine for Carter, and that you ap
61 Usnseallt82: Then you must be an expert on all things military. Who cares? You're making a mountain out of a molehill. These are names of ships....nothing more. A
62 JGPH1A: Not to be contentious, I think this is a good subject to continue in NonAv - I will open a thread.... Thank you - I am intrigued by the term "flight"
63 RedFlyer: I thought he..."never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"?
64 JGPH1A: I see. So only serving military may comment on military subjects, is that it ? How long do I have to have served, to be entitled to an opinion ? It i
65 Usnseallt82: You're entitled to your opinion, but realize that there might be more to it than what meets the eye. Well no shit. I can tell you right now that damn
66 GDB: No joke naming that sub after Carter, given his time in the navy, involvement in the nuclear branch at that. Whatever you think of him it was rather m
68 BHMBAGLOCK: His ego wouldn't be able to take the fact that the nickname "Big Stick" is already taken for a carrier. Also, lots of other good reasons as noted. Yo
69 JGPH1A: Interesting - please explain the connection. Make it so, Number One. We'll just have to wait and see Not Dems, no. Since they were French, I'm sure "
70 BHMBAGLOCK: It's a nickname he picked up while living in France playing off of his pen name of Poor Richard. I live in the South, we're a bit more genteel in our
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1081 posts, 
From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 87 posts, 
, 6222 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4429 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 377 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
